Is Wikipedia a Credible and Valid Source of Information?
Is Wikipedia a Credible and Valid Source of Information?
Management 521
July 25, 2011
Is Wikipedia a Credible and Valid Source of Information?
Abstract
Team A debated on whether Wikipedia is a credible and valid source of information. The team was divided into two groups, one side for and one side against. Among the five team members only one (the author) sided for Wikipedia as a credible and valid source. The debate lasted for seven days. Great points were raised by each team members to prove what they sided for. Is Wikipedia a credible and valid source of information? Wikipedia is an online source of information; it is the counterpart of Britannica in the modern computer world. “Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us,” according to the study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica by Daniel Terdiman.
The modern computer world brought major changes around us; it introduced a modern way of doing research through the evolution of Wikipedia. “If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain” (Stevenson Jr., 1900-1965). “Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, but it is not helpful in many ways. It is uncomfortable to use as source of information for both academic and professional writing because of the fact that anybody with access to the internet can edit its contents. Worse more, the Wikipedia does not only allow individuals to edit its pages, but also allows them even to remain anonymous. It is impossible to validate the information from a source that is not known. Such a submission model is what mainly renders the information from the Wikipedia inaccurate, and difficult to verify as well as frowned upon in academic writing,” (Kan, Team A Debate).
Singh agreed with Kan’s perception and stated that anonymous reference is useless when
Management 521
July 25, 2011
Is Wikipedia a Credible and Valid Source of Information?
Abstract
Team A debated on whether Wikipedia is a credible and valid source of information. The team was divided into two groups, one side for and one side against. Among the five team members only one (the author) sided for Wikipedia as a credible and valid source. The debate lasted for seven days. Great points were raised by each team members to prove what they sided for. Is Wikipedia a credible and valid source of information? Wikipedia is an online source of information; it is the counterpart of Britannica in the modern computer world. “Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us,” according to the study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica by Daniel Terdiman.
The modern computer world brought major changes around us; it introduced a modern way of doing research through the evolution of Wikipedia. “If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain” (Stevenson Jr., 1900-1965). “Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, but it is not helpful in many ways. It is uncomfortable to use as source of information for both academic and professional writing because of the fact that anybody with access to the internet can edit its contents. Worse more, the Wikipedia does not only allow individuals to edit its pages, but also allows them even to remain anonymous. It is impossible to validate the information from a source that is not known. Such a submission model is what mainly renders the information from the Wikipedia inaccurate, and difficult to verify as well as frowned upon in academic writing,” (Kan, Team A Debate).
Singh agreed with Kan’s perception and stated that anonymous reference is useless when